Replies

"I put it to you: Please provide scientific refutation of TToE as documented in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals."

You cannot refute that which is junk science. The circular logic (or rather lack of) doesn't permit a cogent discussion, let alone refutation. If I say anything, you'll find some fault (as evidenced in your inability to answer the earlier questions I raised and instead engaged in an ad hominen attack against my position). Therefore, I cannot refute what you refuse anything as you refuse to look at another possibilities.

You cannot refute that which is junk science. The circular logic (or rather lack of) doesn't permit a cogent discussion, let alone refutation. If I say anything, you'll find some fault (as evidenced in your inability to answer the earlier questions I raised and instead engaged in an ad hominen attack against my position). Therefore, I cannot refute what you refuse anything as you refuse to look at another possibilities.

IOW, you cannot refute that which is irrefutable.

That is all I wanted -- an admission that you are blowing smoke out your butt.

You bring up the alleged "ad hominem" argument a little late. Next time, use it right away (/Debate Coach Advice).

See how easy I am to please?

Next time bring your "A" game.

"You cannot refute that which is junk science. The circular logic (or rather lack of) doesn't permit a cogent discussion, let alone refutation. If I say anything, you'll find some fault (as evidenced in your inability to answer the earlier questions I raised and instead engaged in an ad hominen attack against my position). Therefore, I cannot refute what you refuse anything as you refuse to look at another possibilities."

If I remember correctly, and I know you will correct me if I'm wrong, your argument against Evolution was that there is no evidence that shows common descent. When presented with fossil sequences, and the mention of shared DNA sequences, rather than counter those pieces of information you simply and baldly declared them to not be evidence.

Declaring them to not be evidence is not an argument.

We can and have supplied quotes and links that trace back to either the primary literature, or popularizations of the primary literature by the authors of that literature. You are in effect arguing against that primary literature. To argue against that takes more than just an assertion.

If you make assertions that the information we supply cannot be taken as evidence, without providing cogent and coherent reason, we have no alternative but to believe you simply do not have reason to claim foul but are doing so from personal bias.

Prove me wrong. Explain why the Archaeopteryx is not a transitional. Explain why the sequence of fossils claimed to be transitionals between archaic Artiodactyls and Cetaceans should not be accepted. Perhaps give us a link to the research that based identification of relationships on small similarities while ignoring large differences. Perhaps explain why small similarities, if diagnostic in nature, should not be given more weight than non-diagnostic larger differences?

Or are we to take 'no it isn't' as a valid argument?